Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/624/2013

Wazira S/o. Jiwan Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jai Singh Mistri - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Kumar

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No…624  of 2013.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 26.8.2013

                                                                                               Date of decision: 14.9.2015

Wazira Ram son of Shri Jiwna Ram resident of House No. 230, Satsang Vihar, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

Jai Singh Mistri son of Sh. Sawan Ram, resident of Village Kabulpur, Post Office Bhagu Majra, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                      …Opposite party.

             

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                         SMT. SAROJ BALA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Sushil Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               OP already ex-parte.   

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Wazira Ram  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant engaged  the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP ) for construction of his house  and assured the complainant that the work would be done as per his satisfaction. A writing was also introduced in which the rate of work and the work to be done was mentioned and both the parties have signed the same. The OP started his work of construction in the month of January 2012 and put lintel on 12.4.2012 and started the plaster work on the wall of the house on 4.5.2012. The OP after taking Rs. 300/- from the complainant on 11.6.2012 left the house without saying anything. On 12.6.2012 to 15.6.2012 one mistri and one labourer had done work in the house. Thereafter on 28.6.2012 Jai Singh Mistri and one labourer affixed gate by coming at 5. 00 P.M. and on 12.9.2012 one mistri and two labourers came at house site on 11.00 A.M. and went at 4 .00 P.M.  On 14.9.2012 only two labourers came at work site and went on 4.30 P.M. The OP received amounts from the complainant from time to time during the period from 28.1.2012 to 15.6.2012 amounting to Rs. 2,75,330/-. Thereafter, the OP had not come to complete the work. It is further mentioned that the cost of total work done by the OP comes to Rs. 1,48,325/- and in this way a sum of Rs. 1,27,005/- has been taken by the OP extra from the complainant.  The complainant several times requested the OP to complete the work and to return the extra amount taken by him from the complainant but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other and finaly refused to do so and prayed for directing the OP to return the amount of Rs. 1,27,005/- which had been taken by the OP extra from the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment  and Rs. 8500/- as cost of litigation.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP failed to appear despite service through registered post and as such he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 7.10.2014. 

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CY, Affidavit of Baljinder son of Ramji Lal as Annexure CX and documents such as Copy of agreement on plain paper as Annnexure C-1, Photo copies of payment made to Jai Singh as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.    

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the complainant engaged the OP for constructing of his house situated at Satsang Vihar, Jagadhri during the period from 28.1.2012 to 15.6.2012 and during this period he has received a sum of Rs. 2,75,330/- from the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the cost of total work done by the OP comes to Rs. 1,48,325/- and in this way a sum of Rs. 1,27,005/- has been taken by the OP extra from the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant requested a number of times to the Op to complete the work and to return the extra amount taken by him but he always put off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to do so and when OP did not complete the work, the complainant had to get the work completed from another masons.   Counsel for complainant lastly argued that the OP may kindly be directed to return the amount of Rs. 1,27,005/- alongwith interest which had been taken by OP in extra from the complainant .

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the OP has not completed the construction work of the complainant and to prove his case he  filed an affidavit of Sh. Baljinder son of Ram Ji Lal resident of village Kabulpur Maan Singh as Annexure CX and documents marked as Annexure C-1 to C-6 i.e. agreement and payment chart and lastly prayed that, it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,27,005/-  as well as compensation and harassment.

8.                     The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable firstly on the ground that complainant has totally failed to file any documentary evidence regarding the ownership of the house in question. Secondly, learned counsel for the complainant has also failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that any agreement has been taken place between the complainant and OP. The complainant has furnished writing on plain paper as Annexure C-1 with his complaint but it does not prove that any agreement for construction with the OP was done whereas this writing has been made between Paramjeet Singh and Jai Singh. Moreover, the complainant has tendered Annexure C-2 to C-6 payment chart, it does not prove that the complainant has made the payment to the OP for hiring his services for construction work.  Further, the complainant has totally failed to produce any detail of expenses incurred on the construction work as stated by him in his complaint. Even the name of the person in whose presence the agreement was taken place as well as payment was made has also not disclosed.  Further the evidence lead by way of affidavit as Annexure CX is also not having any weightage as it can be easily procured. The complainant also failed to file any approved site plan from the Municipal Committee or any other authority for such type of huge construction. The complainant also failed to file any expert report regarding the construction work.

9.                     Though in the present complaint, the OP has neither appeared nor defended the case but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this, as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs, without taking the weakness of the opposite parties.

10.                   Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP because the complainant has miserably failed to establish the facts of his case. In the present complaint elaborate evidence is also required to know the genuineness of the complaint i.e. the actual amount paid or received by the parties and such type of matters can only be tried and decide by the Civil Court in regular proceedings and not by the Consumer Court in a summary procedure. The complaint is disposed off accordingly and complainant is at liberty to redress his grievances before the Civil Court, if so advised. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 Announced: 14.9.2015.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.

 

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                    (SAROJ BALA)

                                                                                     MEMBER